The Shadow of Institutional Bias and Territorial Disputes

• In Event: The Changing Nature of Interstate Territorial Conflict and Its Management

Abstract

International courts and arbitration bodies are often evoked to resolve territorial disputes. Yet these institutions are often not perceived as impartial by the disputants. How do the disputants of a territorial dispute view the implication of an international arbitration body consisting of a judge that may be perceived as biased toward one party? We investigate the question by designing and conducting a public opinion survey in the Philippines. The Philippines offers a unique opportunity for our investigation as the public experienced a high-profile international arbitration of one of the country’s territorial disputes. An arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines in 2016 over its territorial dispute with China, while China has not accepted the ruling. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), an international judicial body that adjudicates maritime disputes according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), had a reelection in 2020 to replace a third (i.e., seven) of its panel of 21 judges from different countries. Using a survey experiment where we primed respondents with information regarding whether or not a Chinese judge was elected into ITLOS, our research explores how the Philippine public views the impartiality of ITLOS and its implications on the territorial dispute between the Philippine and other countries. The study will shed important insight into the effectiveness of international arbitration body under the shadow of perceived bias.

Authors

• Songying Fang, Rice University

• Xiaojun Li, University of British Columbia